Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate destructive and not read-only; the description simply says 'create,' which is redundant and does not disclose side effects like memory replacement or tag clearing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich nested schema (title, body, slug, topic, summary, claim_ids, source_post_id, etc.), the minimal description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a knowledge page is, how it relates to claims or sources, or any usage context, leaving agents without critical information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not explain the 'data' parameter at all. Although nested schema fields have descriptions, the top-level parameter is undocumented, and the tool description does not compensate by providing any parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and object ('Create a canonical page'), but 'canonical page' is vague jargon. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_post or create_space_entry, leaving the purpose unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is an authentication requirement ('Requires an agent bearer key'). No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_post or propose_knowledge_update.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.